DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
11 comments:
If you’re IQ is any larger than your shoe size God loses instantly.
I don't think that it's either-or. If there's multiverse, there's a God in each one of them.... or not.
Multiuniverse is satanic. Dont be fooled. UFOs are demonic illusions!! These things are NOT OF GOD. My faith is with Jesus our savior. Made in his likeness and no others.
Human reason cannot confirm the existence of God the Father of Jesus Christ.
Only faith can do that, and faith comes from the Holy Spirit.
No Man chooses to believe this story.
He is chosen to accept it and bear witness to its truth.
During the 1st Century the Pharisees and Saducees were in agreement that Jesus Christ was a liar.
The Hebrews of the day decided to murder Him for His claim of Divinity.
God can do and make anything. And He can end it also. All we see was somehow created by Him. What we know from what He has chosen to reveal to us is all we really need to care about, understood or not.
"If you’re IQ is any larger than your shoe size God loses instantly."
Ad hominem - the fallacy where those who have no actual arguments take refuge.
Ridicule instead of reason.
@7:41
Faith is the excuse given when there is no good evidence or reason to believe something to be true.
Were it demonstrably true, one would not need faith.
Name ANYTHING that cannot be believed with faith. You can't. Because ANYTHING can be believed on faith.. so as a metric, or as a tool, or as a descriptor, it is completely and utterly worthless.
Faith is the LEAST reliable method for anything, and is not a reason to believe or accept any claim, nor is there any merit, importance in it, and any reverence directed to faith as anything other than pointless is a waste of time, and is purely muddying the waters.
Faith accomplishes nothing, and demonstrates nothing. It solves nothing, and answers nothing.
It is the excuse given when you have no other good reason to defend an idea.
8:13 ad hominem is an argument directed at the person instead of what they are arguing. Which is exactly what you did...The burden of proof lies in those who follow religion. The Earth is older than 6.000 years old. We have definitive evidence that the world was not always in it's current configuration..see pangea. If religion makes someone feel more significant and gives them happiness than more power to them. Believe what you want to believe. But don't force it into the government of others. Whether it be Christian, Judaism, Islam, spaghetti monsters in the sky, etc.
I think 5:29 was hinting towards people like 7:27. I really hope 7:27 is just trolling lol
A few thing this video gets wrong..
First, it asserts that life here was fine tuned for our existence. That's like a puddle saying the hole was designed for its existence. If conditions are as such that life can exist in an area does not demonstrate that it was fine tuned for said life.
This has not been demonstrated, so the claim is without merit.
Second. The assertion that "design" suggests a designer. There has been no demonstration that there is a "design", simply an assertion. This is similar to the watchmaker argument. You find a watch on a beach, you know that it must have a designer, and that it could not have just made itself there.. but the flaw in the argument, in form, is that it is not a watch on a beach, if your argument is for design you are arguing a watch on a beach of watches, on a plant of watches, in a universe of watches. The argument fails. We know a watch is designed because it is demonstrable. No one can demonstrate a universe designer. This also fails.
Third. It is asserted that the 70% of the population of scientists are atheist. That, absent a God, they bear a burden of proof to explain origins. This is false. It is completely acceptable to say "there is not enough information to form a conclusion" or simply say "i don't know". The burden of proof ALWAYS rests with the one positing the claim, not the other way around as this fallaciously posited in this video. Ironically, if you did posit that "God" is the reason, then evidence must be presented for this.. and none has been. So the entire idea presented here is broken.
Fourth. They present not only the God of the Gaps argument, but then went right into presupposition apologetics, which asserts that you can't know anything without a God, then doesn't demonstrate said God. Again, logical fail.
Fifth. It is being presented that people "believe" that the multiverse theory is "true". This is not how science works. This multiverse is accepted as a scientific hypothesis that cannot be falsified, but seems like the most likely explanation at the moment the matches with observable science, and physics. . This is NOT the same as claiming to believe it as true. There are also plenty among the scientific community that are skeptical of this hypothesis. It is deceptive, and dishonest, the way it is being presented here. The moment a better hypothesis or theory is in place, that will be the accepted model. That is the way science works.
Sixth. Accepting the best hypothesis at the moment based on the knowledge we have is NOT THE SAME as the claims of faith made by theists about a God. Theists making faith claims are asserting surety the existence of a said Deity without evidence. There is no comparison between these two things, at all.
Seventh. I find it dishonest that the presenters try to use "faith" in the same way that science has "confidence" in a hypothesis they admit is not falsifiable, and is willing to change confidence when better evidence is presented. Not the same thing, it is deceptive and dishonest. It is a slight of hand to discredit a conflicting idea, and a deceptive way to try and justify a position they hold that they know there is no good evidence for.
My God lives and I habe a great relationship with him.
@12:26
Lives? As in distinguishable from inorganic matter? With the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death?
If your Deity lives, it would certainly be demonstrable... please to do so?
And, specifically HOW do you have a relationship? Exactly, how does that happen?
Post a Comment